Judgment

A. K. SARKAR, J.: The respondent, a schedule bank, sued the appellant in the court of the Civil Judge, Sitapore in Uttar Pradesh, for the recovery of money due under an instrument of mortgage. The appellant contested the suit on several grounds one of which was, that he was entitled to relief under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindar s Debt Reduction Act (U. P. XV of 1953) which reduced the amount recoverable on a debt as defined in it. Now a debt was defined in the Act in these terms:

2(f). " debt" means an advance in cash or in kind and includes any transaction which is in substance a debt but does not include an advance as aforesaid made on or after the first day of July, 1952 or a debt due to -

(i) the Central Government or Government of any State;

(ii) a local authority;

(iii) a schedule bank;

(iv) a co-operative society; and

(v) a waqf trust or endowment for a charitable or religious purpose only.

(vi) a person, where the debt was advanced on his behalf by the Court of Wards to a ward.

As the respondent was a scheduled bank the debt due to it from the appellant was not a debt within this definition and consequently, no relief would appear to be available to the appellant under the Act in respect of that debt. The appellant, however, contended that the definition, in so far as it excluded certain debts offended Art. 14 of the Constitution in as much as it made an arbitrary distinction between several classes of debtors and denied the excluded debtors, the equal protection of the law and that hence that portion of the definition which excluded certain debts was invalid and should be struck out and the rest of the definition should be left as operative. If the appellant s contention was justified, the definition would have to run as follows:

"debt" means an advance in cash or in coin and includes any transaction which is in substance a debt,

and would then include the debt due by the appellant to the respondent. If this was the correct position, then the appellant would be entitled to all the reliefs granted by the Act.

2. This defence, therefore raised a question as to the validity of a provision in the Act. So the appellant made an application to the Civil Judge, Sitapur, under the proviso to S. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking him to state a case for the opinion of the High Court at Allahabad to which he was subordinate as to the invalidity of the impugned portion of the definition. That proviso is in these terms:

"Provided that where the Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the SC, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court."

The learned Civil Judge took the view that the impugned portion of the definition infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution as it made an arbitrary distinction between several classes of debtors and was therefore invalid, but he held that it was not necessary for the disposal of the case to decide such question of invalidity because even if it was decided in favour of the appellant, the result would be to exclude the entire definition from the Act as the offending portion was not severable from the rest and the appellant would, therefore, be in any event left without the protection of the Act. In this view of the matter he held that the proviso to S. 113 of the Code did not apply and dismissed the application under it.

3. The appellant then made an application to the High Court at Allahabad for a revision of the order of the learned Civil Judge. He at the same time made another application to the High Court under Art. 228